Reconciliation: Day Ten

Sales trainers tell us that sometimes, when objections involve falsehoods, one must be firm. Reconciliation only goes so far. “That’s just wrong,” we must say, if it is indeed, and we have facts to back it up.

I feel that way a lot lately. There is so much false information being promulgated on both sides of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, much of it flows through the so-called “hate-media” and onto social media. I’ve never listened to or watched false news programs or hate-filled broadcasts. Lately I’ve decided to dismiss any unsupported posting on the internet. That’s pretty much all of them.

Call me old-fashioned, but I respect traditional journalism. I know that it has a doctrine involving both fact-checking and verification through multiple sources. Do they sometimes miss the mark? Certainly, we are all human. To guard against this, I rely on multiple news sources, including

- The New York Times

- The Washington Post

- The Los Angeles Times

- The Guardian (from England)

- The Christian Science Monitor (recently recommended by a highly-respected journalist).

Call me unfair, but I tend to disregard televised news sources. With the death of the giants like Walter Cronkite, TV news too closely resembles the nightmare presented in Paddy Chayefsky’s 1976 film “Network.” Now we have, added into the mix, unschooled readers of the news pontificating on highly complex matters of governance, military matters. or foreign policy, reminding us of another great film “Broadcast News."

Life imitating art. Who in the world would have “thunk it?”

I won’t go into magazines or websites. They are out there. I would just point out that anything posted by the Brookings Institution or Michael Neiberg is sound and unbiased.

In the meantime, if we disagree, remain polite, and I feel you are misstating the facts, I’ll try to soften my response in the spirit of reconciliation. How about my borrowing a line from the film “Fargo?” I’ll just say “I don’t agree with your detective work.”

Just thinking.

Reconciliation: Day Nine

 I’m not quite sure why, but there is lots of controversy today about our LGBT brothers and sisters. Seems everyone has an opinion. I know that I have mine. And I will try to understand yours.

Mine isn’t based on religion. I think religion should be limited to a spiritual examination of one’s own self and not of others. Again, I learned that from The Galilean.  That said, my opinion, if that’s what we may call it, derives from science. If Watson and Crick led us anywhere, they led us to a glimpse of how vastly complicated is the human genome.

Although I’m not smart enough or educated enough to understand the makeup of the DNA structure, I can, barely, glimpse its marvelous complexity, and see how a minor connection here and there can determine our sexual preferences.

It’s that simple, again in my opinion. Some of us are born one way and some another. We all, as fertilized eggs, start out as female. In fact, Stephen Jay Gould wrote that all mammals start as amazingly similar fetuses. Phsycial diversity occurs with devlopment, as should mental diversity.

 Anyway, a less fortunate (as ranked within our household) fetus will undergo a fold here and a wrap there and eventually produce a male of the species. I don’t find it hard to believe at all that somewhere in this amazing process, a sexual preference is formed that transcends the male-female preference orientation. Moreover, I can easily imagine how a fetus of one gender becomes transplanted as that of another gender. Don't know why. It just does.

It is just science, I believe, not sin, not a conscious choice, and certainly not a fit subject for the judgement of others. It is a wondrously complicated Universe in which we are fortunate enough to exist for a brief millisecond, and the quiet contemplation of it, it seems to me, is much more satisfying than spending time nourishing our prejudices, whether from the Bible, the locker room, or the coffee shop.

You may believe differently. I will try to understand that, to the extent that your belief is based on sound analysis, and you don’t allow your belief to escalate into some sort of hegemonic torment—physical, legal, or mental.

Marriage among the similar sexes? If you wish to attend a church that doesn’t allow that, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows it. Remember though, marriage between two people is a fairly recent idea. Will and Ariel Durant suggested that marriage was originally devised, in Western civilization, as a mechanism whereby a man could possess a legal claim to, and protection of, his harem.

I don’t think my wife would buy into that concept in this day and time. My point? Ancient concepts of morality can, do, and should change.

Finally, for those who may find their images of what same-sex partners do in the privacy of their bedrooms distasteful, think of something else, like, maybe helping the poor, or the least of those among us. It is accepted dogma that one can’t think of two things at once. We should all try to choose wisely.

As for distasteful acts, consider how the orchids must feel when they contemplate what goes on in your bedroom under the guise of procreation.

And, for the individual who once reported the claim by a professor at a major central Arkansas university (no, not mine), I have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever that one can actually determine if someone is gay by a bump in a certain spot on their forehead. Sorry.

Just thinking.

Reconciliation: Day Eight

 Perhaps no topic is more controversial among Americans as taxes. We run a wide gamut of opinions, to say the least. There was the famous Civil War veteran and jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who wrote, in a dissenting opinion while on the U.S. Supreme Court, “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society … .”

At the other end, we have the work of political kingmaker Grover Norquist who states, “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” He works at doing this by exacting a pledge from candidates who want the support he can provide. The pledge is, basically, never to vote on enacting or raising a tax.

So where does this leave a sensible person? My friends are free to make any decision they chose. I can only hope that decision is not based on a knee-jerk reaction fulfilling an allegiance to a person rather than the people as a whole.

Personally, I tend toward the Holmes version. He was a veteran of both our most divisive war and the Supreme Court. He must have spent long hours contemplating the complexities of both history and government. Analytical thought is good, I believe.

Does the government waste money? Oh yes. As I write this, our military is still trying to explain the evaporation of over a trillion dollars during our adventure in Iraq.

Does the government spend money on frivolous or unneeded projects? Oh dear. Does the term “pork barrel” ring a bell?

On the other hand, can we seriously contemplate such varied things as Hurricane Katrina, Yellowstone National Park, the invasion of Normandy, 9-11, Oklahoma City, Sesame Street, the elimination of polio, Social Security, Medicare, The Smithsonian, and a postal service that connects us to even the most remote areas of our country, without admitting the government can be a source of good for many, if not all of us?

Of course, some of those items represent programs that are more popular with our diverse society than others. Still, I’ve observed each of them providing great solace to our people, many of whom represent the “least of those among us.”

As complicated as the topic may be, and as elusive as answers may be, I choose, myself, to pay taxes willingly. I do this even when the paying may not benefit me directly. Though we have no children, we steadfastly support our public school system. An uneducated population, incapable of analytical thinking, may seem a worthwhile goal to some, but I beg to disagree. Does an H.G. Wells book called “The Time Machine” strike a chord?”

Let us each view taxes in our own way, each of us. I choose to not attack the concept, but to be on constant vigilance toward the administration of the concept. This is consistent with my belief that freedom, within the bounds of enlightened control and regulation, is truly what can make America great.

My country is too great ever
to become a place of depair.

Reconciliation: Day Seven

Some mornings, it’s harder to extend a hand of reconciliation to friends with different world views, than on others. Today is one of those days.

There are times when I fear so deeply about the future of my country that I find it almost impossible to converse with those who don’t.

But I will try.

There have been times in my life when I believe our country was on the verge of what Richard Wagner called Gotterdammerung, or “downfall of the gods.”

Geo-politically, I believe this nearly occurred when a national moral collapse led us into, and kept us in, the debacle in Vietnam, leaving hundreds of thousands dead, crippled, or scarred. I, personally, cannot help believing we are currently escalating another, less winnable, conflict against an enemy that has no concept of “forget and forgive,” meaning the destruction will never end. What will folks tell their grandchildren?

Internally, I think the Joe McCarthy era was such a test of our national morality, as was the Watergate era.

Regionally, I believe, to paraphrase William Faulkner, the “Jim Crow” period in the American South has left a curse on this area, if not the entire country, that will last for more generations to come.

During each of these, we survived as a nation because reasonable people acted. They transcended their pre-formed alliances and acted in the best interest of the country as a whole. I cannot help contrasting this with the public statement recently by a U.S. representative from our state that he “was elected by a group (with specific political leanings) and he would serve that group,” presumably to the exclusion of anyone else. Other elected officials have admitted the need for specific action but cannot vote accordingly because they signed “a pledge” to one individual that prevents them. Are these the attitudes that will make America great?

These things bother me, so I’m probably less conciliatory today than perhaps I might be. I will keep trying.

The foregoing are conclusions, based on my experience and education. If yours lead you to different conclusions, let us talk. By all means, let us talk. There are issues about which reasonable people can and do differ. That was once a more entrenched American attitude that it seems to be today.

Still here. Still thinking.

Reconciliation: Day Six

No attempt at reconciliation could succeed without a discussion of the intemperate language that has pervaded our society. One must look no further than a typical comment-stream on You Tube to witness the degradation of our ability to discuss even the most sublime Mozart sonata without resorting, within ten exchanges, to “MFs,” and worse.

What has happened to us? I don’t know. In my youth, knowing adults used the word “prejudice” to warn us against pre-judging others without beginning to understand the issues behind their life. There were no outright power dynamics involved, but prejudice was filled with the subterranean seeds from which could grow a stronger and more active predilection: bigotry.

We were quick to replace the word “prejudice” with “bigotry,” which implies not only discriminatory thought but behavior as well. Thus, those who grew up with unfounded impressions suddenly became bigots. Would the trials of carrying a name eventually affect behavior? Maybe.

It got worse. Both terms were replaced by “racism,” or the use of power to retain power over others by whatever means necessary. Soon, the mildest expression of negative thought toward a person of a different background was termed racism, and the accusations continue to fly until this very day. Reconciliation was tossed into the same linguistic bonfire as understanding, civility, good manners, and friendly discussion.

Why bring this up? To me, prejudice is a condition that one can work on and stifle in its infancy. Perhaps the first step is an admission that it exists. Any time I hear someone deny that they are at all prejudiced, warning bells go off. To doubt a person fully would be an act of prejudice itself, but warning bells are warning bells and useful at times.

Following self-awareness, a second step might involve an attempt at understanding, and a comparison of backgrounds. It happened this way with me. One day I realized that there was no way in the world I could fully comprehend the effect on me had I heard a 16-year old call my 45-year old father “boy.” Nor could I comprehend how it must have felt to see any depiction of my race in the movies as a “happy domestic slave” or a shiftless, stumbling idiot. As someone once remarked, it wasn’t the fact that Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry, better known by the stage name “Stepin Fetchit,” consistently portrayed lazy, shiftless black men. The real tragedy was that he was so good at it.

We remain stuck with our prejudices, as F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “… boats against the current.” I must fight the inclination to regard the uneducated as slow-witted, although my own father, with an 8^th-grade rural education could work algebraic equations in his head without ever having studied algebra. Then there was my father-in-law, blessed with a similar educational background, who could construct an entire house without ever making a mark upon a sheet of paper. My sainted mother read my college books, including Dostoyevsky, while I was visiting home.

The list goes on, and includes the self-taught technician who can stand ten feet away from a malfunctioning automobile engine and diagnose its problem. What a wondrous and diverse world we live in, if we only stop to observe it without pre-judging. (Oh, that pesky Galilean keeps interfering).

My own promise today is to work on my prejudices, and hope, beyond hope, that they never progress into bigotry or racism. That will keep me busy enough that I shouldn’t have time to think ill of you. It should also keep me away from comment threads. I’ll try. In the meantime, I’ll follow the advice of my long-time hero, who said:

Reconciliation: Day Five

Yesterday, I bared my soul, so to speak, about religion, and I’ll say no more on that specific topic. I would like to comment further on the question of separation of church and state. I know this is a touchy subject, and I’ll tread lightly. It is one that we must face if we seek to reconcile our feelings, so I will start with my thoughts.

For openers, I don’t question for a moment an individual’s decision to allow their personal feelings to influence their political beliefs. I think this is a basic American value, enthroned forever in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I think this flows into one’s decision to hope that people who share core beliefs are voted into office. As with all manners of navigation, it is a matter of degrees. I would hope that education, thought, analysis, experience, and suspicion be added in setting our final course.

What worries me are the vast complexities of both religion and politics, in which we must make decisions. Once again, in nautical terms, we might compare these with charting the crosswinds, fickle tides, hidden shoals, and unforeseen storms of life. These, I believe, are so pervasive that simple decisions are alluring, even seductive, but dangerous. At some point, we either moderate, or compromise, our beliefs, trim our sails, so to speak, or we will end up allowing tricksters to steer us into a political shipwreck.

For example, I personally feel pretty strongly about war as a means of settling all political disputes. I know, however, that electing a legislature that would outlaw war entirely would both be impossible and unrealistic. I have to moderate my decision and consider the vast fabric of goals a candidate must bring into office with her or him. If someone supports the military unequivocally, along with social justice and the health, safety, and welfare of our planet and its citizens, a carefully weighed and complex decision must be made. I would just hope that I make the best decision instead of striving for the perfect one, considering how near impossible it is to achieve perfection.

Thus, I see dangers in one’s decision to base their sacred vote on one single issue. To do so, I believe, invites charlatans who will promise to address that issue from one side of the podium while trashing all other time-honored values from the other side. I would, personally support a candidate who espoused one idea I found distasteful, but who supported remaining goals that would benefit humankind. The idea is that it would be easier, in the long run, to alter a person’s stand on one issue by urging careful analysis and exemplary living, than it would be to repair the damage done by the morally and ethically challenged.

In summary, I know that some of my friends believe that a person will not be judged according to a lifetime of toil, despair, tragedy, joy, satisfaction, and fulfillment, but upon one emotional and spiritual decision. The oath I took in 1966 to defend the Constitution of the United States requires that I defend that belief. I did and I will.

But I don’t share it.

I believe that, if we are to judge at all—and the Galilean, as I pointed out previously, recommends against it—let us judge according to the life of an imperfect but right-minded person who will grant unto all of humanity, including the least of those among us, the same rights and privileges hoped for and sought so earnestly along the way for herself or himself.

There. Now that’s simple, isn’t it?

Just thinking …

Reconciliation: Day Four

It is Sunday. Perhaps that’s a good time to talk about religion. I probably shouldn’t, but it is such an overwhelming aspect of American life that any sort of reconciliation that doesn’t consider it would fail at the starting gate, so to speak.

I’ve feelings and thoughts all over the place about it. Raised in a protestant household—Missionary Baptist in fact—I call myself a “Cultural Christian.” To tell the truth, I never liked to go to church. The two weeks I spent in Vacation Bible School as a child still stand as the longest ten years of my life. I began to eschew organized religion when I realized that the so-called “social gospel” that resonated so strongly with me is gone and not likely to return. Then a preacher in a small church we attended began to refer to those who believed in science as sinners. We fled, like Jews leaving Egypt. I’m not being sacrilegious, for those friends who are believers. I’m just being honest, a step I feel is essential if we are to try and understand one another.

That having been said, I will admit to revering much of the music of religion, the masses of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and others are sublime enough to make one spiritual, if not outright religious. On the popular front, I still play, hum, and try to sing the old church hymns. A good old good one, such as “Just As I Am,” has an unearthly power to move. Now … I can’t confess to caring much for the modern stuff, once described as “Jesus Is My Boyfriend,” music. But if you do, that is fine. I just happen to agree with the NPR guest who once said that comparing the old hymns with modern church music is like comparing a Shakespearian Sonnet to a Hallmark greeting card.

Enough of that.

I will also admit that, on most Sunday mornings, I sit with my mother-in-law and watch a televised Methodist service broadcast in our area. It’s the only segment of religious broadcast I watch on TV, other than the second or so it takes for me to change a channel. But, I find the one mentioned so full of grace, peace, love, and joy that I don’t think watching it would do harm to the most hardened atheist.

May we just agree that religion, in whatever form we take it—and there are so many—is so highly personal that a shared relationship is almost impossible? Could we not just leave it at that and allow one another to live her or his personal life accordingly? For me, that means keeping it to yourself and out of politics. Sorry, that’s just my opinion. You are entitled to your own.

What formed my opinion? I am one of the small percentage of living humans that has read the Holy Bible from start to finish, so I’m not illiterate in ecclesiastical matters. I’m one of the extremely few who have read it from start to finish more than once. I once read where Captain Joshua Slocum, author of, “Sailing Around the World Alone,” and the first person to do that, read the Bible numerous times, the exact number escapes me. I have neither that great man’s courage nor spare time. I can’t match his effort at studying the book, but I’ll keep trying.

When I do read it, I find sublime thought mixed with inconsistencies, cruelty, and the illogical. At the same time, I believe it lays bare the complexity of the human spirit, is the most enduring basis of western literature, and a must-read for an understanding of that genre. So, I will continue to read that esteem instrument although I sincerely believe it is both metaphorical and written by men for men. Yes girls. For men.

The point from which I must sincerely, and without malice, express my departure from so many dear friends, is the belief, as expressed in The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky "If God is dead, all is permitted," more often expressed as “without religion, there is no morality.”

I have known saints and sinners on both extremes the belief-nonbelief spectrum. There have been countless books written on the question, and I, personally, stand on the belief expressed by Albert Einstein: "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."

But if religion truly causes you to be kind, caring, accepting, loving, and supportive of your fellow human beings, by all means follow it with joy and my blessing.

How in the world can we find reconciliation in beliefs so pervasive disagreements? My approach will be a striving for respect and non-judgement. In other words, “judge not.” I’ll borrow that one from the Galilean himself. I only ask my religious friends to do the same.

Meanwhile got to run. The service is coming on.

Just thinking …